15 Cited authorities

Davis v. Williams
588 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1978) Cited 1,703 times
Holding that a Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is a “harsh sanction which should not be invoked lightly in view of the ‘sound public policy of deciding cases on their merits.'”
Mendez v. Elliot
45 F.3d 75 (4th Cir. 1995) Cited 259 times
Holding that the court may not extend the time for service absent a showing of good cause
Despain v. Salt Lake Area Metro Gang Unit
13 F.3d 1436 (10th Cir. 1994) Cited 156 times
Holding that where plaintiffs failed to serve the proper parties, good cause was not shown even though the statute of limitations had run, the plaintiffs' counsel had misinterpreted the applicable rule of procedure, the defendants allegedly failed to show that they would be prejudiced by an extension, and the defendants may have had actual notice of the lawsuit
Hammad v. Tate Access Floors
31 F. Supp. 2d 524 (D. Md. 1999) Cited 114 times
In Hammad v. Tate Access Floors, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 524, 526 (D. Md. 1999), the court noted that "the continued vitality of Mendez is seriously in doubt."
O'Rourke Bros. Inc. v. Nesbitt Burns, Inc.
201 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2000) Cited 108 times
Finding that dismissal under Rule 41(b) is "a drastic remedy, which should never be lightly imposed"
Quann v. Whitegate-Edgewater
112 F.R.D. 649 (D. Md. 1986) Cited 83 times
Finding service insufficient because "neither [of the] defendant . . . named on the certified mail receipts[] signed for the delivery"
Vincent v. Reynolds Memorial Hosp., Inc.
141 F.R.D. 436 (N.D.W. Va. 1992) Cited 69 times
In civil action, the District Court, Maxwell, Chief Judge, held that plaintiff's intentional delay in serving summons and complaint in order that other pending cases between parties could be developed toward resolution did not amount to " good cause" excusing noncompliance with civil rule requiring service within 120 days after filing of complaint, and dismissal of action without prejudice was required. Ordered accordingly. Alfred J. Vincent, pro se. Robert P. Fitzsimmons, Wheeling, W.Va., Michael
Burns Russell Co. v. Oldcastle, Inc.
166 F. Supp. 2d 432 (D. Md. 2001) Cited 39 times
Stating that unincorporated divisions lack capacity to be sued
Knott v. Atlantic Bingo Supply, Inc.
Civil No. JFM-05-1747 (D. Md. Dec. 22, 2005) Cited 15 times
Explaining that Rule 6(b) permits a district court to extend the time for service "after the expiration of the specified period . . . where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect"
Profit v. Americold Logistics, LLC
248 F.R.D. 293 (N.D. Ga. 2008) Cited 10 times
Freddie Profit, Norcross, GA, pro se. Brandon Michael Cordell, Jackson Lewis LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant. ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., District Judge. This is a pro se employment discrimination action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 6] of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the action be dismissed for failure to effectuate service. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. This action is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. MAGISTRATE
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Rule 6 - Computing and Extending Time; Time for Motion Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 Cited 50,129 times 24 Legal Analyses
Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. World Avenue USA, LLC et al

15 Cited authorities

Holding that a Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is a “harsh sanction which should not be invoked lightly in view of the ‘sound public policy of deciding cases on their merits.'”

Holding that the court may not extend the time for service absent a showing of good cause

In Hammad v. Tate Access Floors, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 524, 526 (D. Md. 1999), the court noted that "the continued vitality of Mendez is seriously in doubt."

Finding that dismissal under Rule 41(b) is "a drastic remedy, which should never be lightly imposed"

Finding service insufficient because "neither [of the] defendant . . . named on the certified mail receipts[] signed for the delivery"

Stating that unincorporated divisions lack capacity to be sued

Explaining that Rule 6(b) permits a district court to extend the time for service "after the expiration of the specified period . . . where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect"

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Holding that "if the last day [of a period] is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday."

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"